Fluoride Action Network

Community will not be well-served by fluoride

Source: The Coloradoan | May 15th, 2003 | by Cherie Trine
Location: United States, Colorado

The Coloradoan has sunk to a new low when reporting on fluoridation. After calling those who want clean water “anti-fluoride crusaders,” the Coloradoan (April 25) reported that two “boards” support fluoridation. One of those “boards” is a board of directors of a “special district.”

The Water Board is the only board appointed by City Council to represent our community and make recommendations. The Water Board recommends that the city stop fluoridating with “hazardous” chemicals because public drinking water is not an appropriate way to deliver a drug.

Support for fluoridation comes from a few “fluoride crusaders” in overlapping positions of trust. The Health District of Northern Larimer County organized the formation of the Fluoride Technical Study Group (FTSG), made recommendations as part of that group and made its own recommendations.

Two employees of ENSR, a firm averaging $20 million a year in government contracts, made recommendations as members of the FTSG and again as members of the Water Board and the Larimer County Board of Health.

The FTSG relied on government promoters and refused to contact fluoridation experts. As a result, it released a report filled with factual errors.

The community solicited comments from experts. David Kennedy, DDS, past president of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, reviewed the FTSG report. He wrote, “I read the review and was shocked to find a whole host of misrepresentations and selective quoting. … The errors are far too numerous and the distortions too complex for me to go into detail.”

Kennedy wrote, “The FTSG on page iv (of the executive summary) claimed that fluoridation studies show a reduction in caries by 0.35 surfaces per year. I don’t believe that this figure is correct. It conflicts with the information they cited on page 13 for the 1987 NIDR (National Institute for Dental Research) study which found a total difference for life-long residents of only 1/2 of one surface. The average child in that study had less than three cavities. How would it be possible to prevent one cavity every three years when after nine years there would be no more cavities to prevent? The NIDR 1987 survey of 39,000 children in 84 communities found no significant difference in tooth decay between the fluoridated, partially fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas.”

Kennedy noted that the FTSG ignored the cost to treat teeth damaged from fluoride overdose. Fluorosis rates are higher in fluoridated communities, and dentists profit from its treatment. Medicaid doesn’t cover fluorosis.

The public submitted lengthy comments from seven experts, who noted the excessive amount of errors. Were the errors in the FTSG report ever corrected?

As bad as the FTSG report is, the antiquated claims of the American Dental Association (ADA) are completely false. The ADA, a trade group, claims fluoridation is “natural,” has been tested for 50 years and “strengthens” children’s teeth. The FTSG found we don’t use “natural” calcium fluoride. We use hydrofluorosilicic acid from pollution scrubbers. The FTSG confirmed that hydrofluorosilicic acid never has been tested for safety and doesn’t “strengthen” children’s teeth (pages 62 and 9). The FTSG report shows that children are being overdosed.

Unfortunately, the city has conducted no outreach beyond the release of an inaccurate draft report. How many people know what is added to the water, where it comes from and the cost? Last summer, an internationally respected chemist, EPA toxicologist and dentist held a public debate on fluoridation. The city refused to televise it, and the Coloradoan refused to cover it. How long can the public be kept in the dark?

Hydrofluorosilicic acid eats glass. The old storage tanks are becoming dangerous. Should the city spend $500,000 for new ones? Let City Council know.